The Future of NATO

Another Summit, more bickering over pay, a clear sign of the forthcoming end of the relationship as NATO fades into the annals of yesteryear where it belongs.

After the Second World War, with Western Europe still quaking in its boots after the severe threat to its existence as pluralistic democracies posed by the Panzers of Hitler and with the rise of the Soviet Union as the all-conquering Nemesis of Fascism, Western Europe and its new bedmaster, the United States of America, felt the need to create a collective military alliance. It was called NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and they said its purpose was defensive in opposition to the Warsaw Pact. NATO was set up in 1949; the Warsaw Pact was formed in 1955. As a defensive measure against NATO.

The Warsaw Pact was essentially a defensive military organization to stop marauding gangs of barbarians from the West turning eastwards and sowing chaos, havoc and murder. It happened with Napoleon from France, it happened with Hitler from Germany, it had already happened during the Russian Civil War, from Great Britain, the USA and Czecho-Slovakia, among others.

NATO was, is and has always been an aggressive military organization with the aim to expand through military or political conquest. The proof of the pudding is the fact that NATO expanded eastwards after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved despite promising that it would not do so. Today NATO grips Russia's throat like a vice, with NATO formations placed to the North, West and South of Russia's main zone of habitation.

For what reason? NATO would argue that its very existence is necessary to counter the hegemonistic dreams of Mother Russia and would cite as examples the cases of Georgia, Kosovo, Crimea/Ukraine, poisoning attempts in the UK and recent "hostile activity" around the Baltic States, clear proof, for NATO, that Russia is a force to be reckoned with and opposition can only be successful if the alliance stands together. This is the only and entire justification for NATO's raison d'être.

Now let us pull this argument apart strand by strand. For a start, Georgia never made any serious attempt to solve the questions arising from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as catered for in the Third Soviet Constitution, until in 2008 it launched a savage and murderous attack against Russian peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia and had amassed military equipment for a similar escapade in Abkhazia. Russia conducted a limited military operation to pacify the region after Georgia's aggression and stated at the time it was careful not to humiliate Tblissi. A spectacular NATO failure.

As regards Kosovo, NATO intervened in the internal affairs of the Republic of Serbia, kidnapped its President, who died while in custody in the Hague which failed to prove him guilty; NATO carved out the heart of Serbia and delivered it to drugs barrons and organ traffickers, terrorists parading under the flag of Kosovo Liberation Army. Kosovo is not an independent nation and never was. Kosovo is Serbia and shall remain so. A spectacular NATO failure.

Crimea. Now sit down and listen. Imagine any union of two states, temporarily. Let is say the UK and France. During the Union, someone decides to give the Isle of Wight to France. It was never French, the people do not speak French and over 95 per cent of them want to remain English. Fifty years later the two countries go their separate ways but the Isle of Wight is said to now belong to France. If a referendum were organized, how do you think the people would vote? For fish 'n' chips or boeuf bourguignon?

In the case of Ukraine/Crimea, there was a Fascist Putsch in Kiev in which the elected President was ousted (so much for NATO's respect for democracy), Russian speaking Ukrainians were massacred by Fascist thugs and NATO prepared to swipe Russia's military bases in Crimea. In the absence of the democratically elected President, the legislative assembly in Crimea became its proper law-making organism and this organized the referendum in which over 90 per cent of the people voted to return to Russia. A spectacular NATO failure.

The Skripal case is shrouded in mystery and the only evidence pointing to Russia are amazing statements by the British Establishment claiming that Russia must be involved because Novichok was produced in Soviet times, because Russia eliminates traitors and because in the absence of any plausible alternative explanation, Russia must be guilty. Try using that in a court of law, it would be thrown out in the first instance. So the substance is a military grade nerve agent which is deadly within seconds. Well no actually, three of the so-called victims have survived. It is easily washed off surfaces but seems to be able to withstand rain and the British weather for many months. It was made in Russia, except the Soviet batches were made in Uzbekhistan and the formula is easily available on the Net. As I informed the British authorities, they would use their resources better by looking at a rogue element in Porton Down and/or some kind of a local terrorist spiking drugs and food.

The Baltic story is a non-event. Russia poses no threat to its neighbours and Moscow follows the rule-book of international relations and diplomacy, using the UN Security Council as the proper forum for debate and discussion and dialogue.

It does not trot across the globe invading countries and using military hardware against civilians and civilian structures as NATO countries do. Take for example the strafing of Iraqi fields of cereals to create famine, take for example the use of Depleted Uranium in Kosovo and in Iraq, take for example the hundreds of thousands of babies born with deformities because of this; take for example NATO's involvement in the internal affairs of Libya, and the illegal bombing of the water supply and the pipes to repair the network, the strafing of Gaddafy's grandchildren considered by NATO as "legitimate targets" and the destruction of the electricity grid "to break their backs". Take for example NATO's lies about chemical attacks by the Syrian Government always on the eve of UN debates. Spectacular NATO failures.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what NATO is about, justifying its existence by inventing puerile threats through lies, then living off the rebuilding contracts which are doled out to cronies and the military agreements which create millions of jobs in NATO countries. NATO is useless as a defensive mechanism because there is no external threat. So NATO countries spend one point two trillion USD each and every year on military budgets like some kind of a private club.

States are free to pursue their own foreign policies based on the legislation passed by their Parliaments, the representatives of their people in a democracy. NATO, however, is a supra-State organism which is not democratically elected, does not represent any people, is not controlled by Parliaments and therefore is an unconstitutional body dictating policy and controlling budgets which affect the pockets and lives of the citizens of the member states.

Nobody asked anyone if they wanted their country to be part of an institution which systematically commits war crimes, murder, destruction of property, breaching international law and spending over a trillion dollars (one thousand billion) each and every single year on its perverse schemes.

If NATO were to transform itself into a humanitarian organization, spending that kind of money on development and education, and respecting the sovereignty of nations, it would be a different matter.

Time to bring the existence and nature of NATO onto the political agenda.

*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. A Vegan, he is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights. He is Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru.